In: Value in Tradition: The Utility of Research on Identity and Sustainability in Dwellings and Settlments. Berkeley: IASTE Working Paper Series 1994-1995, Vol 62: 35-50 (Methods of Traditional-Environment Research). USING THE DWELLING TO STUDY CULTURE Anick Coudart (CNRS, France) ERA 12 (UPR 7532), 3 rue Michelet, 75006 Paris Abstract As archaeologist and ethnographer, I would like to show here how the study of the articulation between uniformity, variability and differentiation (architectural model / architectural options / contingent and/or individual traits) which underlies any domestic dwelling may contribute to our understanding of the process of transformation of an architectural tradition; and, one step further, to predict the potential persistence (durability) of a culture. The question is to show that the house can produce knowledge and general explanations. This approach (which implies comparison between several individual cultures) aims to extract the schema (the structuration) underlying every architectural tradition. This can be done by distinguishing between: (1) those architectural elements which are manifest in one form only or which vary within a range of culturally determined options, and: (2) those architectural traits which are different from one house to the next. A first “structuration” appears which distinguishes elements related to (1) cultural stability from elements belonging to (2) the diversity of local contingencies. We can thus establish that in any architectural tradition the number of uniform elements (including those which vary within a fixed cultural range) is always greater than that of the elements which are different from house to house. Next, one can investigate the mechanism which transforms an architectural model by classifying those elements which vary within a typological range according to their relative degree of variation; that is, according to the number of culturally approved options that each of them can take on. The architectural components then sort themselves according different levels of variation. A second mathematical relation (structuration) thus appears which is indicative of the degree of stability (sustainability) and flexibility (resilience) of the architectural tradition. Since there is a correspondence between the structuration of domestic architecture and the structuration of the collective representations which define each culture, it becomes possible (through the study of domestic architecture) to measure the relative importance of the terms which describe this structuration. As each of these terms relates to a greater or lesser degree of stability, this allows us to measure — at the level of the cultural system — the relationship between the factors contributing to stability (cultural norms) and those relating to instability (individual expressions and contingent adaptations). In other words, this allows us to investigate the relationship between sustainability and resilience, and presents us with one avenue to evaluate the logic which is responsible for the reproduction of a cultural system, as well as the potential life-span of its cultural identity. In this perspective, we may formulate two hypotheses: (1) the number of forms which an architectural element may assume is an indicator of the speed with which this element may be transformed; the more variants of the form of the architectural element exist, the quicker the change is. Concomitantly, it would seem that the relation “uniform architectural elements / variable architectural elements” might be used to appreciate the durability (in the sense of virtually identical reproduction) of a cultural entity. That brings us to the second hypothesis: (2) when the number of uniform architectural components (i.e. those which have one form only or a very limited number of variants) is high (with respect to those components which vary more widely), the cultural definition would persist; inversely, when the number of variable components (i.e. which have numerous forms) together with the number of contingent components, far exceeds the number of uniform components, then the quasi-identical cultural reproduction of the group would theoretically be much less sustainable; the group will then be (conceptually) more “flexible” about the collective representations it uses to build its world-view, and hence more receptive to concepts stemming from other cultures. My aim is to show how the study of domestic architecture permits us to grasp the logical structure which underlies the reproduction and transformation of a culture, and eventually to evaluate its potential persistence (its durability). But it is probably useful to first recall what inhabited space and domestic architecture signify for the group and for cultural identity among traditional societies. THE HOUSE AS COLLECTIVE MEMORY As the constitution of the Kanaks expresses so beautifully, by taking a dwelling and its organization as point of departure, one may objectify, reflect on, and perpetuate — in space as well as in time — the family, kinship, alliances and, beyond, the organization and identity of a society. 1 In Kanak country, in the centre of Grande Terre, the main dwelling of the household is named by a word: wââo that could be translated by lineage. All the descendants of the ancestor who built the original dwelling are members of the same wââo. The kinship unit, which is thus defined, has the name of the site where this first dwelling was erected. Thus the origin of the